USA Fencing Shifts Policies on National Anthem and State Hosting Amid Controversy

USA Fencing has recently made headlines with significant updates to two of its more contentious policies, following a decisive vote by its board of directors. The organization has shifted gears on its approach to hosting events and honoring national traditions, stirring a mix of curiosity and debate among sports enthusiasts.

Firstly, the policy that previously favored hosting national tournaments in states with pro-LGBTQ laws has been revised. Now, all 50 states are on equal footing when it comes to consideration for hosting events. This means places like Texas, Florida, and Missouri—previously on the organization's 'avoid' list—are back in the game. Next season, national events are slated to span across nine states, including some of those once sidelined, judged purely on cost, safety, and travel convenience. A bold move, indeed, to strip away political filters and focus on logistics.

Secondly, the national anthem policy has been formalized. While USA Fencing insists the anthem has always been played at national tournaments, it’s now an official mandate, effective from the 2025 Summer Nationals. This rule will also extend to playing the anthem on U.S. holidays during events, such as Independence Day. However, this policy isn’t set in stone—it’ll face annual review by the tournament committee, leaving room for future tweaks.

What’s intriguing is the organization’s tight-lipped stance on the 'why' behind these changes. When pressed for reasons, a spokesperson deflected, stating it’s inappropriate to speculate on the board’s personal motivations. This opacity raises eyebrows, especially given the backdrop of past criticisms. From fencer Stephanie Turner’s protest against transgender policies to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sharp critique of the organization’s state-selection biases during a recent DOGE Subcommittee hearing, USA Fencing has been under a microscope.

These policy shifts seem to address some of the loudest grievances—geographic discrimination and a perceived lack of patriotism—but the silence on their rationale leaves us guessing. Are they a genuine pivot toward inclusivity and tradition, or a strategic sidestep to quiet the critics? Only time, and perhaps a few more tournaments, will tell.